On Monday, August 11, 2014 10:43:28 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
Chuckle, chuckle. ;-). Thank you all for my lunchtime reading and some heartfelt laughter.



This thread has already recycled several of my favorite old topics.



1) I do not see how a rule change can "thread the needle' on this issue. There is far too much subjectivity in determining "what is fair?" In a sport which allows starting literally anytime after the starting gate opens (competitors often choosing to start HOURS apart) and a sport that is is often only "constrained" by 60 MILE wide turn area's, LUCK is INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED IN! Who are we trying to kid? This is why I would like to see a far higher proportion of pure Assigned Tasks along with limitations on the start gate (30 minute window for example).



There will always be uncontrollable variables (luck, bad luck) effecting results in any sport no matter how tightly controlled (a gust of wind in the 100 meters, etc). Sailplane racing, however, is extroidinarily loose in its race quality constraints and therefore intentionally introduces a high degree of chance and luck. This is, of course, justified by the goal of reducing the chance of landouts to as close as zero as possible. Unfortunately the quality of the competition has dropped significantly because of that goal (IMO).



In regards to changing the devaluation rule as you suggest, the "judgement" required to determine the fairness of one pilot "getting away" and starting successfully and another "not having a fair chance" is a very fine line.. Even the launch order on a particular day in a large contest can have significant effect on the outcome (more luck). If we had more overall focus within the sport of soaring (Grand Prix is the exception) on caring about race quality and constraint of racing variables, I would be much more inclined to say that starting success rates also needs a better form of control. But as it stands with only 3% Assigned Tasks and nearly 65% TAT's (many with 60 mile areas!) and free start rules, why does trying to further define starting fairness really matter? If you tighten this rule than why should you not also provide relief for competitors who find there way into the "wrong side" of a 60 mile turn area? Shouldn't they also be able to claim the task was unfair when they were unable to "get away" from the bad luck they experienced in the wide turn area? The same goes for pilots who choose to start early or late and land out because of that decision. Was that skill or luck? Sure some are going to argue that its all skill choosing when to start or choosing which side of a 60 mile turn area is best. Others (me included) would argue that a large degree of luck is involved. You are taking a risk by starting early or late? You are taking a risk when you choose what side of a 60 mile turn area to head towards! In a sport that intentionally designs in a high degree of "variability" (aka chance, aka uncontrollable variables)...complaining about not being able to start while another does is a fairly weak argument when compared with the opportunities for luck that are designed into the sport in general.



2) Fair opportunity to race? Race? Only 3% of our tasks in the USA in 2013 were races (Pure AT's). TAT's and MAT's are distance/average speed/timing your final turn/additional turn points while managing your computer tasks. A gliders relative position to yours is almost meaningless. With only 3% pure AT's we are not really racing sailplanes any more. 3% works out to only 7 US sailplane races in 2013.



3) I find the complaints about PDA's, smart phone driven soaring apps and cellular data particularly amusing. The US RC has already gone to great lengths to ban cell phones, cellular data and satellite data from competition. As Noel says this is unenforceable and with that people are likely ignoring the rule entirely. It would be much easier to simply allow smart phones to be used normally and tell the old schoolers to get over it! In reality, cellular data is very unreliable at altitude ( 2000 ft AGL) and most sailplane pilots are very busy when low. It is fairly unpractical to utilize cellular based data when racing in a glider competition. Sporadic weather updates (radar, etc) is the best that one could expect. That said, checking the weather (radar image) a moment before takeoff to get a picture of thunderstorm activity, etc is a smart thing to do in my opinion and should be allowed. I have already made this argument until I was blue in the face.. It fell on deaf ears. As it stands today you still have complainers who want it banned and an RC who has "banned it" but doesn't care to enforce the rule in the slightest way. Meanwhile many don't care and use it anyway. I don't see the sense in any of it. We should either enforce the rule tightly or make it legal and get out of our own way once and for all.



Sean



Hmmmm. I don't see how this is related to task type or start configuration at all. The central question is whether you get to altitude to get out on course. Having a Grand Prix type start exacerbates that problem and is one reason why organizers are reluctant to implement the Last Start Time for more Grand Prix-type starts. If the weather in the area around the start cycles when you are just off tow you can be left digging out with the task clock running. It's often very tough for a CD to predict exactly when a day will pop to set the gate open and gate close times. Similarly, I find ASTs in variable weather to be more luck-dependent than other task types - and variable weather happens a lot - every single day at R9N had weather issues over significant portions of the task area - including the start. Pilots got cut off from turn points early in the day and late in the day and being forced to go to a 1-mile potentially in the rain would only have upped the luck factor even more.

I agree that there is a difficult "thread the needle" challenge here. When is a failure to get out on course related to bad weather luck versus pilot skill and when is the appropriate remedy to devalue the day versus zero it out it all together? Certainly if you ended up unable to make 1/2 min distance because you couldn't get above release altitude, having the day devalued versus cancelled can still mean a lot of points.

The big challenge with the current system is human behavior -- no one wants to be the one to speak up in the moment or protest after the fact. People invest a lot of time and money in going to contests, it's hard to call a day off while there's still some hope of getting away - no matter how remote. Some objective criteria and guidelines might help. Needs a lot more thought.